please, reply this post with your thought ( minimun 100 words)

Leandra Banero Yesterday The US Business Judgment Rule states that every person in charge of a company will do whats beneficial and best to it. It states that the directors will be honest with any action taken. Besides the U. other countries such as Canada also applies this rule. I agree with all parts of the United States since I find very fair that business directors do what's best for a company and obviously this rule was created to enforce it. If by any chance this rule is not respected then the court takes some kind of actions towards the person not following it. Between the US and Canada I do not really find much difference. I believe they both follow the same rule from the same perspective. They both agree on that the directors should act in an honest way regarding any business matter and in good faith. This two countries agree on engaging, acting in good faith like I mentioned before, following a good process, and documenting. By engaging the company can ensure and discuss the issues that they company might be having. Acting in good faith leads them to being honest and doing what's right. Following a good process will assure them that reasonable decisions have been taken, and last but not least documenting everything will lead to having proves of what has been done. Honestly I wouldn't change anything in the US rule, I belleve as it is, it's already fair to every company. Therefore I believe the most effective aspects of it is the actions they take when someone does not follow the rule and disrespects it. Officer and directors who fail to do it will be held against lawsuits, which I believe it's very fair. On the other hand of this part if an officer or director has done the correct thing they will be protected against any liability